Postmodern Philosophies in Curriculum Studies Historically, philosophy has been an important part of education. However, Slattery (2006) describes how the inclusion of philosophy in teacher-education programs has diminished due to an increased reliance on scientific methods, objectivity, and rational thinking in the past century. Slattery also discusses how, in a postmodern educational atmosphere, philosophy is again gaining importance and prominence.
Although all educators study educational philosophies at some point in their training or degree program, the experience is not always meaningful (Slattery, 2006). Professors sometimes present philosophy in an inaccessible manner or classes may be impersonal and contrived, leading students of education to feel that philosophy is irrelevant to their lives or practice. However, it is important and often required that teachers develop personal philosophies of education, and to reflect on and change their philosophies based on time and experience. Slattery found that the philosophies written by education students often do not reflect what really occurs in the classroom. Similarly, schools and districts write philosophies and mission statements, but these are often only created as a ritual to justify the curriculum; they may be irrelevant or do not match actual curriculum or teaching practices. These philosophies actually seldom drive curriculum development and practice. Slattery argues that part of the issue could be a reliance on the Tylerian approach to curriculum development. The Tylerian approach is a scientific, systematic method of curriculum development which focuses on subject matter rather than the student. This method, which is still heavily relied upon in today's schools, doe
Seven processes for a lived experience in Philosophy
s not encourage the incorporation of philosophy.
In order to bridge the disconnect between philosophy and practice, and create a more relevant exposure to philosophy for education students, Henderson and Kesson (2004) offer seven processes in their book, Curriculum Wisdom: Educational Decisions in Democratic Societies. For education students to have a lived experience in philosophy, the following processes are suggested:
1) "techne", or craft reflection; 2) "poiesis", or soulful attunement to the creative process; 3) "praxis", or critical inquiry; 4) "diagolos", or multiperspectival inquiry; 5) "phronesis", or practical and deliberative wisdom; 6) "polis", or public moral inquiry; and 7) "theoria", or contemplative wisdom (Slattery, p. 188).
Meaningful Educational Philosophy Educators must be committed to their personal philosophies; therefore, professors of education should attempt to make philosophy meaningful for their students. Maxcy (1994) states, "Before people can commit themselves to ideals, however, they must first find them meaningful. A vision that has no meaning is no vision at all" (p. 46). Maxcy goes on to discuss a necessary commitment to democracy within the philosophies of educational leaders.
One reason Slattery (2006) cites for the disappearance of philosophy and ideology from education are their historical roles in the justification of many disturbing practices and atrocities. "The challenges that continue to disconnect philosophy from the curriculum are segregation, tracking, racism, corporate manipulation, gender research bias, savage economic inequalities and injustices, social control, and political conflict of interest and indoctrination" (Slattery, p. 188). However, if we continue with our current curriculum designing strategies, and exclude philosophy, we cannot critically examine these disturbing practices in the educational system and society.
More recently, as education moves into the postmodern era, philosophy is regaining importance, especially among curriculum theorists (Slattery, 2006). In a system which is more concerned with human rights, justice, and compassion, curriculum developers and theorists are reconsidering the importance of philosophy as a driving force behind curriculum and instruction. Currently, scientific models of curriculum development and schooling, such as the Tylerian approach, are not working. According to Slattery, "the Re-conceptualization of curriculum studies, the field of curriculum theory rather than the field of philosophy of education has often taken the lead in promoting the postmodern philosophical discourses that integrate education and philosophy" (p. 190).
A Postmodern View The postmodern era creates an atmosphere in which it is necessary for educators to consider new understandings in writing their mission statements and philosophies of education. Slattery discusses the need to reincorporate philosophy into curriculum theory and the field of education. Abraham DeLeon (2008), a philosopher of education, states, "... people need to reconceptualize how they define community, and also challenge the ideologies that emerge from a profit-based and commercialized society" (DeLeon, p. 124).The current reliance on scientific, rational processes ignores many educational and societal problems; a shift to explore philosophies such as deconstructionism, poststructuralism, and postmodernism can help educators take a more active role in creating a more just, understanding, and compassionate society.
The Divide between Philosophy and Education in the University
J.Dewey
In an effort to appear more legitimate as a discipline, philosophy of education professors began to align themselves with schools of philosophies, rather than schools of education. This trend began in the 1950s and continued into the 1960s, marking the beginning of a time where the field of educational philosophy was plagued with controversy (Slattery, 2006). One of the most notable scholars to be recognized as both a philosopher and an educator was Dewey. Dewey was well received by those studying philosophy of education because he was schooled initially in philosophy, not education, and was therefore seen as a professor of “pure philosophy” (Slattery, p. 188). Dewey's pragmatic educational philosophy had a profound impact on the educational system of his time (Slattery). During his tenure at the University of Chicago Laboratory School, Dewey was the head of the combined departments of Philosophy, Psychology, and Pedagogy. The integration of these three departments became the foundation of Dewey's learning activities at the school, and Dewey’s migration from philosophy to education served as a model for many universities on the approach to teaching philosophy of education (Slattery). As an education reformer who viewed education as learning through experience, Dewey felt that it was “the school’s responsibility to connect knowledge to life events and to educate individuals for intelligent participation in society” (Hlebowitsh, 2005, p. 3). The core of Dewey’s work was initiated by “Darwinian evolutionary theory, [which involved] the scientific method, democracy, aesthetics and the philosophy of pragmatism" (Slattery, p. 189). Dewey’s philosophy of education led the progressive education movement, and his ideas interpreted the relationship between knowledge and practice in a novel way. For progressives, practice was the test of truth and was understood as a vital pedagogical tool, but its transformative role was ignored (Aronowitz & Giroux, 1991).
From about 1900 to 1950, philosophy of education courses held a vital role in universities as a part of foundation of education studies. During the 1960s, when the importance of the field began to diminish, philosophy of education departments were either absorbed into other departments, such as educational leadership or
P.G. Smith: Balance between philosophy and pedagogy
administration, or offered only as electives. With these changes came distinct divides within universities because curriculum theorists and educational philosophers, by their very nature, approach the topic of educational philosophy quite differently. Slattery uses Philosophy of Education (1965) to highlight Philip G. Smith's argument that applying analytic philosophy in to educating students is problematic because issues within the educational field are unique. In this sense, it may be inappropriate to use pure philosophy to make interpretations about education without using the context of schools, but it is equally inappropriate to approach situations in schools without any regard for philosophy. Another example of fundamental differences between educational philosophers and curriculum theorists is demonstrated in Bruce Wilshire's (1990) The Moral Collapse of the University: Professionalism, Purity, and Alienation. Wilshire points out that the university faculty and staff did not appear interested in their primary purpose of educating others, but were caught up in their personal disciplines or applied professional concerns (Slattery). Professors of philosophy "professionalized" their field by making it more scientific and analytic (Wilshire, p. 103). In this way, philosophy became "caught up in the atmosphere of science without its substance" (Wilshire, p. 112). However, it also lost many aspects of holistic thought and self-reflective thinking. It became detached from other fields, such as education. More recently, many curriculum theorists have accepted Wilshire's challenge "to move the field of education beyond the rigid parochialism and instrumentalism" (Slattery, 2006, p. 190). Another educator who condemns the combination of philosophy and education is Eisner. Eisner (1991) believes that philosophy in education causes students to doubt their beliefs about the education system and actually causes a distraction from their work within the field. “The central concepts in the social sciences are themselves philosophical in nature: validity, truth, fact, theory, objectivity, structure” (Slattery, 2006, p. 191), so it is unnecessary to spend additional time studying philosophy. The 1960s witnessed the beginnings of an approach to education that radically diverged from the progressive tradition. During this time many of the tenets of this new approach were built on progressive ideas and some of these progressive elements became known as "postmodern" (Aronowitz & Giroux, 1991).Since the 1970s, when the Reconceptualization of curriculum studies came about, “the field of curriculum theory has begun to incorporate attributes of philosophy into the study of curriculum and instruction. It may be that curriculum theorists will provide leadership that will help return philosophy of education to prominence in the postmodern field of education" (Slattery, 2006, p. 191). Today, uncertainty continues to plague the philosophy of education. This uncertainty is the balance between "how to conduct research and theoretical investigations that will be viable from the perspective of the social sciences and humanities, while remaining firmly rooted in the particular concerns of postmodern leadership in schools" (Slattery, p. 189). We must move toward an eclectic integration of philosophy and education in order for both to be vibrant and enable respected leadership. Rather than the field of philosophy of education, the field of curriculum theory often takes the lead in promoting postmodern philosophy that integrates philosophy and education, and this “renewal of philosophical understandings of curriculum studies might offer the best hope for finally transcending the drudgery and disconnectedness of the curriculum methods courses” (Slattery, 2006, p. 191).
Philosophy and Curriculum Theory
Teacher training
Despite past disconnects with education, philosophy is still used in the educational field, especially in educator preparation programs. This also occurs despite critics, such as Elliot Eisner, who argue that philosophy is an academic distraction, especially when preparing students to become educators (Slattery, 2006). However, Slattery uses the work of William Pinar to explain that colleges should focus less on certifying teachers and more on the “efforts of scholarly study” (p. 191). Philosophy of education became part of the education degree because it was losing its importance and popularity in the 1960s. During this time, philosophy of education courses were offered as an elective or part of the basic courses for a degree plan. It was not until the 1970s that many curriculum theorists started to contribute to the philosophy of education. Scholars thought this contribution would help create philosophy of education departments. Nevertheless, it appears that more programs are training future teachers to focus on the same old teaching techniques, but disguise them as new and modern. Slattery states that today’s school systems are focused on memorization, on knowing facts, and winning educational games. "Instead, meaning becomes the site of departure, a place where reality is constructed, truth is produced, and power is effected" (Britzman, 1992, p. 25). Therefore, the question is, are students really learning? The postmodern view proposes that the Tylerian model used in schools is not working as well as philosophers thought, and therefore it must be replaced. Slattery mentions that postmodern curriculum development promotes understanding rather than “planning, design, implementation, and evaluation of context-free and value-neutral schooling events and trivial information” (p. 192).
To create and change the way education views philosophies and theorists, one needs to find relations to the modern day. Slattery (2006) explains that the application of theories and philosophies needs to be based on experiences and relations to the classroom. Understandings should be deconstructed to help educators with the foundations of such difficult concepts.
Deconstruction of Ideas
"According to postculturalist anarchists, power in the cultural, political, economic, and social realm must be exposed, subverted, and destroyed" (DeLeon, 2006, para. 12). By exposing such understandings, challenges will be faced. Not everyone embraces changes, but some believe "combining anarchist theory and critical pedagogy in the individual classroom could be quite powerful, and introducing students to these crucial traditions may help bring change much more quickly" (DeLeon, 2006, para. 43). DeLeon (2008) challenges people to withstand practices in the classroom and take a stance on their own personal meaning, adding value to the teaching and practices. Adding to this thought, DeLeon states, "As a radical discourse, anarchist theory pushes educators and researchers towards new conceptualizations of community, theory, and praxis" (2008, p. 122). DeLeon focuses on the postmodern society, centering his theories and values on social justice, as well as personal values and beliefs in which one is passionate and challenged. The anarchism to which he subscribes is based on "... an agenda for social justice that situates the discourse outside the individual" (DeLeon, 2008, p. 123). DeLeon (2008) also relates his anarchism approach to current educational concerns and issues based on No Child Left Behind and high-stakes testing. He addresses how a great deal of instructional time and energy is dedicated, by both teachers and administrators, to teaching strategies that will help students to be succesful. DeLeon (2008) says, "Direct action against NCLB and other high-stakes test can be a successful strategy in resisting standardized curriculum and sabotaging these tests is a positive step in the right direction" (p.134-135). In this case, DeLeon is attempting to make students and teachers feel empowered for direct action and help changes occur in our current education system.
An argument set forth by Doll (2001) purports that the educational model should follow a transformative curriculum. Under this paradigm, the individual's internal structures of understanding are transformed and the motivation behind this change is driven by internal factors. In addition Doll states that, "such a change would be internal and include disequilibrium as a prime motivator" (p. 14). The core foundation of transformative curriculum is a shift in personal structures by which the individual has an opportunity to reflect, experiment, and try alternatives. Piaget (as cited in Doll) states that "this doing, undoing, and redoing process is essential. Knowledge is not a copy of reality, but a process of construction" (p. 15).
In the past two decades, curriculum theory has seen growth. Curriculum theorists and philosophers of education have joined together to develop a new postmodern perspective. In this new perspective, the dividing line between curriculum theory and philosophy of education is not as bold as before. This will help develop postmodern curriculum for the new and changing times. As it is now, philosophy of education courses are not as developed and fail to teach students many things they should be learning. Slattery believes this should be changed - both curriculum development and philosophy of education courses are required.
Slattery has explained the field of philosophy and its relation to curriculum development in several ways, which are expanded upon in the following chart:
Slattery's Four Distinct Perspectives Over the Philosophical Agenda of Curriculum Development
Perspective
Beliefs
Followers
1. Essentialists
People who believe and follow the ideas of Platonic Idealism or Scientific Realism in the school curriculum
Chester Finn
Diane Ravich
William Bennett
2. Traditionalists
People who believe and follow the synoptic and analyses of philosophy of education
Howard Ozmon
Daniel Tanner
Laurel Tanner
3. Curriculum Theorists
People who use phenomenology, feminism, poststructuralism, deconstructionism, neo-marxism, or neopragmatism to support the post-Tylerian curriculum
Henry Giroux
Kathleen Kesson
Cleo Cherryholmes
4. Philosophers and Theorists
People who contemplate the parochial philosophical debates, weigh the arguments, and articulate a broader vision of post modern curriculum
Maxine Greene
Ted Aoki
David Purpel
Dwayne Huebner
Contradictions within these four perspectives are the reason why teachers are often criticized for educating our children. For example, an essentialist’s and traditionalist’s view of education in this country is what Slattery (2006) believes exists and that these philosophies do not recognize the other philosophies concerning education. Philosophies such as deconstructionism, post-structuralism, neo-Marxism, etc. stand in the way or present problems to the essentialist and traditionalist philosophy of education (Slattery). Slattery also explains that one of the biggest challenges in the postmodern era, due to essentialists’ and traditionalists’ stronghold on curriculum, is the ability to uncover the different possibilities that exist in the study of curriculum theory. In education, and other systems influenced by the Enlightenment’s analytic philosophies, scholars have developed a series of postmodern perspectives to deconstruct these failed ideals. Slattery highlights the use of three terms; poststructuralism, deconstructionism, and postmodernism, and explains their separate meanings and developments. He emphasizes how these systems review and dismantle the previous notions found in their Enlightenment counterparts.
Deconstructionism, Poststructuralism, and Postmodernism
Deconstructionism and poststructuralism are two major educational philosophies that may be challenging to understand. They require an expansion of one's cognitive framework, but provide a rich source of viewpoints and perspectives in the study of curriculum and education.
It would be easy to misinterpret deconstructionism as destructionism. Slattery (2006) uses Derrida's (1972) explanation to point out that desconstructionism is not destructive at all, but rather “simply a question of being alert to the implications, to the historical sedimentation of the language we use; and that is not destruction” (Slattery, p. 271). In other words, deconstruction seeks to peel away the multiple, layered connotations and meanings of language and thought to get at the meanings underneath the shallow interpretations of normal analysis. The two main layers that deconstruction peels away are those added by Cartesian and Enlightenment philosophies. Deconstructionism points out the fact that these philosophies have far-reaching impacts on how we see the world today. The separation of self and environment of Cartesian thought is central to many modern philosophies on education. It is important to realize that this separation is not an absolute truth, but rather a belief that has become widely accepted. Similarly, the Enlightenment focus on rational humanism, a belief in the power of rational thought and humanity over the world, serves as the philosophical bedrock of almost all modern discourse. Without deconstruction, we cannot uncover these assumptions and make way for new and different ways of thinking.
Poststructuralism began as a postmodern denial of the ideas found in structuralism. Poststructuralists do not reject modernity, but they critique modern rights, knowledge, and subjectivity (International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, 2008). The poststructuralists argued against the structuralist philosophy that there are immutable,underlying structures that control human behavior. Structuralists looked for universal truths in the milieu of historical events and believed that specific instances of human behavior were simply reflections of these underlying truths. Poststructuralism rejected this idea and saw history, culture, and the human mind as highly varied and situational. In this philosophy, there are no human nature or universal human truths to use as the reason for individual actions. Instead, the actions of the individual are a result of the specific historical and cultural context in which they act. As Derrida (1972) stated, "it [is] necessary to think that there is no center, that the center [is not] thought in the form of being present, that the center [has] no natural locus, that it [is] not a fixed locus but a function, a sort of non-locus in which an infinite number of sign-substitutions [comes] into play."(edited for tense)
Slattery (2006) also has a problem with structuralism and its use of language as the medium for discovery. Ferdinand Saussure shifted the focus of language analysis from a study of origins to a focus on existing structures (Slattery). This theoretical view of language diminished the historical aspect of language and emphasized foundational structures which create meaning and are created in semiotic structures and systems of signs. The argument against Saussure and the structuralists for the poststructuralists stems from the notion of the mind being structured in a similar fashion as the systems in the world.
To postmodern thinkers, this view of the world limits human nature within the system and denies the ideas of other systems, political and social, having any impact on one another. This flawed Enlightenment view of a constant unified structure of systems limits the impact these systems have on each other. Poststructuralism attempts to dismantle the parts and views each with skepticism and a critical perspective. Structuralism views the sets and systems found in nature as meaning making. Poststructuralism opposes structuralism and attacks humanism and existentialism. They find subjectivity in the parts of the system and find flaws in the Enlightenment theory purporting greater understanding by ignoring these variables. For Slattery, structuralism wishes to prevent these variables and “…the hemorrhaging of subjectivity into the world” (Slattery, 2006, p.195).
Slattery's (2006) definitions of deconstructionism and poststructuralism are very brief and the paragraphs here are briefer still. As Slattery points out, any brief discussion of a philosophy based on uncovering deep, layered meanings and avoiding overarching generalizations must be incomplete and somewhat inaccurate. Hopefully, however, this summary provides enough of an understanding of these two philosophies to spark curiosity, further research, and discussion.
Postmodern educators believe the curriculum best inspires learning only when school knowledge builds upon tactic knowledge derived from the cultural resources that students already possess (Aronowitz & Giroux, 1991). In other words, it is the task of the teacher to persuade students that this knowledge contributes to helping them learn what they want to know. For postmodern education, it is not a question of substituting popular cultural for traditional, high culture topics. Instead, the traditional curriculum must meet the test of relevance to a student-centered learning regime where "relevance" is not coded as the rejection of tradition but is a criterion for determining inclusion (Aronowitz & Giroux).
Slattery’s definitions for post-structuralism, deconstructionism, and postmodernism are an attempt to highlight the importance of these philosophies for change within curriculum and instruction. Removing ourselves from a static goal and objective oriented system is important in the changing postmodern era. Philosophy allows this change to take place by understanding it “…is not simply a study of perennial truths, but rather a vehicle for engendering justice, compassion, self-exploration, empowerment, [and] critical thinking…” (Slattery, 2006, p. 198).
References
Aronowitz, S., & Giroux, H. A. (1991). Postmodern education: Politics, culture and social criticism. Minneopolis, Minnesota: The University of Minnesota Press.
Britzman, D. (1992). The terrible problem of knowing thyself: Toward a postcultural account of teacher identity. CT: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Curriculum Studies 9(3), 23-50.
DeLeon, A. (2008). Oh, no, not the "A" word! Proposing an "anarchism" for education. Educational Studies, 44 (2) 122-41.
DeLeon, A. (2006). The time for action is now! Anarchist theory, critical pedagogy, and radical possibilities. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 4 (2). Retrieved from http://www.jceps.com/
Derrida, J. (1972). Structure, sign and play in the discourse of the human sciences. In R. Macksey & E. Donate (eds.), The languages of criticism and the sciences of man: the structuralist controversy, 223-224. Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press. Doll, W. (2001). Prigogine: a new sense of order, a new curriculum. Theory Into Practice, XXV (1) 10-16.
Eisner, E. (1991). The educational imagination: On the design and evaluation of school programs. 1st ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Henderson, J.G., & Kesson K.R. (2004). Curriculum wisdom: Educational decisions in democratic societies. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall. Hlebowitsh, P. (2005). Designing the school curriculum. Boston: Pearson.
Maxcy, S. J. (1994). Democracy, design, and the new reflective practice. NASSP Bulletin, 78 (46), 46-50.
Historically, philosophy has been an important part of education. However, Slattery (2006) describes how the inclusion of philosophy in teacher-education programs has diminished due to an increased reliance on scientific methods, objectivity, and rational thinking in the past century. Slattery also discusses how, in a postmodern educational atmosphere, philosophy is again gaining importance and prominence.
Although all educators study educational philosophies at some point in their training or degree program, the experience is not always meaningful (Slattery, 2006). Professors sometimes present philosophy in an inaccessible manner or classes may be impersonal and contrived, leading
In order to bridge the disconnect between philosophy and practice, and create a more relevant exposure to philosophy for education students, Henderson and Kesson (2004) offer seven processes in their book, Curriculum Wisdom: Educational Decisions in Democratic Societies. For education students to have a lived experience in philosophy, the following processes are suggested:
1) "techne", or craft reflection;
2) "poiesis", or soulful attunement to the creative process;
3) "praxis", or critical inquiry;
4) "diagolos", or multiperspectival inquiry;
5) "phronesis", or practical and deliberative wisdom;
6) "polis", or public moral inquiry; and
7) "theoria", or contemplative wisdom (Slattery, p. 188).
Meaningful Educational Philosophy
Educators must be committed to their personal philosophies; therefore, professors of education should attempt to make philosophy meaningful for their students. Maxcy (1994) states, "Before people can commit themselves to ideals, however, they must first find them meaningful. A vision that has no meaning is no vision at all" (p. 46). Maxcy goes on to discuss a necessary commitment to democracy within the philosophies of educational leaders.
One reason Slattery (2006) cites for the disappearance of philosophy and ideology from education are their historical roles in the justification of many disturbing practices and atrocities. "The challenges that continue to disconnect philosophy from the curriculum are segregation, tracking, racism, corporate manipulation, gender research bias, savage economic inequalities and injustices, social control, and political conflict of interest and indoctrination" (Slattery, p. 188). However, if we continue with our current curriculum designing strategies, and exclude philosophy, we cannot critically examine these disturbing practices in the educational system and society.
More recently, as education moves into the postmodern era, philosophy is regaining importance, especially among curriculum theorists (Slattery, 2006). In a system which is more concerned with human rights, justice, and compassion, curriculum developers and theorists are reconsidering the importance of philosophy as a driving force behind curriculum and instruction. Currently, scientific models of curriculum development and schooling, such as the Tylerian approach, are not working. According to Slattery, "the Re-conceptualization of curriculum studies, the field of curriculum theory rather than the field of philosophy of education has often taken the lead in promoting the postmodern philosophical discourses that integrate education and philosophy" (p. 190).
A Postmodern View
The postmodern era creates an atmosphere in which it is necessary for educators to consider new understandings in writing their mission statements and philosophies of education. Slattery discusses the need to reincorporate philosophy into curriculum theory and the field of education. Abraham DeLeon (2008), a philosopher of education, states, "... people need to reconceptualize how they define community, and also challenge the ideologies that emerge from a profit-based and commercialized society" (DeLeon, p. 124).The current reliance on scientific, rational processes ignores many educational and societal problems; a shift to explore philosophies such as deconstructionism, poststructuralism, and postmodernism can help educators take a more active role in creating a more just, understanding, and compassionate society.
The Divide between Philosophy and Education in the University
In an effort to appear more legitimate as a discipline, philosophy of education professors began to align themselves with schools of philosophies, rather than schools of education. This trend began in the 1950s and continued into the 1960s, marking the beginning of a time where the field of educational philosophy was plagued with controversy (Slattery, 2006). One of the most notable scholars to be recognized as both a philosopher and an educator was Dewey. Dewey was well received by those studying philosophy of education because he was schooled initially in philosophy, not education, and was therefore seen as a professor of “pure philosophy” (Slattery, p. 188). Dewey's pragmatic educational philosophy had a profound impact on the educational system of his time (Slattery). During his tenure at the University of Chicago Laboratory School, Dewey was the head of the combined departments of Philosophy, Psychology, and Pedagogy. The integration of these three departments became the foundation of Dewey's learning activities at the school, and Dewey’s migration from philosophy to education served as a model for many universities on the approach to teaching philosophy of education (Slattery). As an education reformer who viewed education as learning through experience, Dewey felt that it was “the school’s responsibility to connect knowledge to life events and to educate individuals for intelligent participation in society” (Hlebowitsh, 2005, p. 3). The core of Dewey’s work was initiated by “Darwinian evolutionary theory, [which involved] the scientific method, democracy, aesthetics and the philosophy of pragmatism" (Slattery, p. 189). Dewey’s philosophy of education led the progressive education movement, and his ideas interpreted the relationship between knowledge and practice in a novel way. For progressives, practice was the test of truth and was understood as a vital pedagogical tool, but its transformative role was ignored (Aronowitz & Giroux, 1991).
From about 1900 to 1950, philosophy of education courses held a vital role in universities as a part of foundation of education studies. During the 1960s, when the importance of the field began to diminish, philosophy of education departments were either absorbed into other departments, such as educational leadership or
Another educator who condemns the combination of philosophy and education is Eisner. Eisner (1991) believes that philosophy in education causes students to doubt their beliefs about the education system and actually causes a distraction from their work within the field. “The central concepts in the social sciences are themselves philosophical in nature: validity, truth, fact, theory, objectivity, structure” (Slattery, 2006, p. 191), so it is unnecessary to spend additional time studying philosophy.
The 1960s witnessed the beginnings of an approach to education that radically diverged from the progressive tradition. During this time many of the tenets of this new approach were built on progressive ideas and some of these progressive elements became known as "postmodern" (Aronowitz & Giroux, 1991).Since the 1970s, when the Reconceptualization of curriculum studies came about, “the field of curriculum theory has begun to incorporate attributes of philosophy into the study of curriculum and instruction. It may be that curriculum theorists will provide leadership that will help return philosophy of education to prominence in the postmodern field of education" (Slattery, 2006, p. 191). Today, uncertainty continues to plague the philosophy of education. This uncertainty is the balance between "how to conduct research and theoretical investigations that will be viable from the perspective of the social sciences and humanities, while remaining firmly rooted in the particular concerns of postmodern leadership in schools" (Slattery, p. 189). We must move toward an eclectic integration of philosophy and education in order for both to be vibrant and enable respected leadership. Rather than the field of philosophy of education, the field of curriculum theory often takes the lead in promoting postmodern philosophy that integrates philosophy and education, and this “renewal of philosophical understandings of curriculum studies might offer the best hope for finally transcending the drudgery and disconnectedness of the curriculum methods courses” (Slattery, 2006, p. 191).
Philosophy and Curriculum Theory
Despite past disconnects with education, philosophy is still used in the educational field, especially in educator preparation programs. This also occurs despite critics, such as Elliot Eisner, who argue that philosophy is an academic distraction, especially when preparing students to become educators (Slattery, 2006). However, Slattery uses the work of William Pinar to explain that colleges should focus less on certifying teachers and more on the “efforts of scholarly study” (p. 191). Philosophy of education became part of the education degree because it was losing its importance and popularity in the 1960s. During this time, philosophy of education courses were offered as an elective or part of the basic courses for a degree plan. It was not until the 1970s that many curriculum theorists started to contribute to the philosophy of education. Scholars thought this contribution would help create philosophy of education departments. Nevertheless, it appears that more programs are training future teachers to focus on the same old teaching techniques, but disguise them as new and modern. Slattery states that today’s school systems are focused on memorization, on knowing facts, and winning educational games. "Instead, meaning becomes the site of departure, a place where reality is constructed, truth is produced, and power is effected" (Britzman, 1992, p. 25). Therefore, the question is, are students really learning? The postmodern view proposes that the Tylerian model used in schools is not working as well as philosophers thought, and therefore it must be replaced. Slattery mentions that postmodern curriculum development promotes understanding rather than “planning, design, implementation, and evaluation of context-free and value-neutral schooling events and trivial information” (p. 192).
To create and change the way education views philosophies and theorists, one needs to find relations to the modern day. Slattery (2006) explains that the application of theories and philosophies needs to be based on experiences and relations to the classroom. Understandings should be deconstructed to help educators with the foundations of such difficult concepts.
An argument set forth by Doll (2001) purports that the educational model should follow a transformative curriculum. Under this paradigm, the individual's internal structures of understanding are transformed and the motivation behind this change is driven by internal factors. In addition Doll states that, "such a change would be internal and include disequilibrium as a prime motivator" (p. 14). The core foundation of transformative curriculum is a shift in personal structures by which the individual has an opportunity to reflect, experiment, and try alternatives. Piaget (as cited in Doll) states that "this doing, undoing, and redoing process is essential. Knowledge is not a copy of reality, but a process of construction" (p. 15).
In the past two decades, curriculum theory has seen growth. Curriculum theorists and philosophers of education have joined together to develop a new postmodern perspective. In this new perspective, the dividing line between curriculum theory and philosophy of education is not as bold as before. This will help develop postmodern curriculum for the new and changing times. As it is now, philosophy of education courses are not as developed and fail to teach students many things they should be learning. Slattery believes this should be changed - both curriculum development and philosophy of education courses are required.
Slattery has explained the field of philosophy and its relation to curriculum development in several ways, which are expanded upon in the following chart:
Slattery's Four Distinct Perspectives Over the Philosophical Agenda of Curriculum Development
Diane Ravich
William Bennett
Daniel Tanner
Laurel Tanner
Kathleen Kesson
Cleo Cherryholmes
Ted Aoki
David Purpel
Dwayne Huebner
Deconstructionism, Poststructuralism, and Postmodernism
Deconstructionism and poststructuralism are two major educational philosophies that may be challenging to understand. They require an expansion of one's cognitive framework, but provide a rich source of viewpoints and perspectives in the study of curriculum and education.
It would be easy to misinterpret deconstructionism as destructionism. Slattery (2006) uses Derrida's (1972) explanation to point out that desconstructionism is not destructive at all, but rather “simply a question of being alert to the implications, to the historical sedimentation of the language we use; and that is not destruction” (Slattery, p. 271). In other words, deconstruction seeks to peel away the multiple, layered connotations and meanings of language and thought to get at the meanings underneath the shallow interpretations of normal analysis. The two main layers that deconstruction peels away are those added by Cartesian and Enlightenment philosophies. Deconstructionism points out the fact that these philosophies have far-reaching impacts on how we see the world today. The separation of self and environment of Cartesian thought is central to many modern philosophies on education. It is important to realize that this separation is not an absolute truth, but rather a belief that has become widely accepted. Similarly, the Enlightenment focus on rational humanism, a belief in the power of rational thought and humanity over the world, serves as the philosophical bedrock of almost all modern discourse. Without deconstruction, we cannot uncover these assumptions and make way for new and different ways of thinking.
Poststructuralism began as a postmodern denial of the ideas found in structuralism. Poststructuralists do not reject modernity, but they critique modern rights, knowledge, and subjectivity (International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, 2008). The poststructuralists argued against the structuralist philosophy that there are immutable,underlying structures that control human behavior. Structuralists looked for universal truths in the milieu of historical events and believed that specific instances of human behavior were simply reflections of these underlying truths. Poststructuralism rejected this idea and saw history, culture, and the human mind as highly varied and situational. In this philosophy, there are no human nature or universal human truths to use as the reason for individual actions. Instead, the actions of the individual are a result of the specific historical and cultural context in which they act. As Derrida (1972) stated, "it [is] necessary to think that there is no center, that the center [is not] thought in the form of being present, that the center [has] no natural locus, that it [is] not a fixed locus but a function, a sort of non-locus in which an infinite number of sign-substitutions [comes] into play."(edited for tense)
Slattery (2006) also has a problem with structuralism and its use of language as the medium for discovery. Ferdinand Saussure shifted the focus of language analysis from a study of origins to a focus on existing structures (Slattery). This theoretical view of language diminished the historical aspect of language and emphasized foundational structures which create meaning and are created in semiotic structures and systems of signs. The argument against Saussure and the structuralists for the poststructuralists stems from the notion of the mind being structured in a similar fashion as the systems in the world.
To postmodern thinkers, this view of the world limits human nature within the system and denies the ideas of other systems, political and social, having any impact on one another. This flawed Enlightenment view of a constant unified structure of systems limits the impact these systems have on each other. Poststructuralism attempts to dismantle the parts and views each with skepticism and a critical perspective. Structuralism views the sets and systems found in nature as meaning making. Poststructuralism opposes structuralism and attacks humanism and existentialism. They find subjectivity in the parts of the system and find flaws in the Enlightenment theory purporting greater understanding by ignoring these variables. For Slattery, structuralism wishes to prevent these variables and “…the hemorrhaging of subjectivity into the world” (Slattery, 2006, p.195).
Slattery's (2006) definitions of deconstructionism and poststructuralism are very brief and the paragraphs here are briefer still. As Slattery points out, any brief discussion of a philosophy based on uncovering deep, layered meanings and avoiding overarching generalizations must be incomplete and somewhat inaccurate. Hopefully, however, this summary provides enough of an understanding of these two philosophies to spark curiosity, further research, and discussion.
Postmodern educators believe the curriculum best inspires learning only when school knowledge builds upon tactic knowledge derived from the cultural resources that students already possess (Aronowitz & Giroux, 1991). In other words, it is the task of the teacher to persuade students that this knowledge contributes to helping them learn what they want to know. For postmodern education, it is not a question of substituting popular cultural for traditional, high culture topics. Instead, the traditional curriculum must meet the test of relevance to a student-centered learning regime where "relevance" is not coded as the rejection of tradition but is a criterion for determining inclusion (Aronowitz & Giroux).
Slattery’s definitions for post-structuralism, deconstructionism, and postmodernism are an attempt to highlight the importance of these philosophies for change within curriculum and instruction. Removing ourselves from a static goal and objective oriented system is important in the changing postmodern era. Philosophy allows this change to take place by understanding it “…is not simply a study of perennial truths, but rather a vehicle for engendering justice, compassion, self-exploration, empowerment, [and] critical thinking…” (Slattery, 2006, p. 198).
References
Aronowitz, S., & Giroux, H. A. (1991). Postmodern education: Politics, culture and social criticism. Minneopolis, Minnesota: The University of Minnesota Press.
Britzman, D. (1992). The terrible problem of knowing thyself: Toward a postcultural account of teacher identity. CT: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Curriculum Studies 9(3), 23-50.
DeLeon, A. (2008). Oh, no, not the "A" word! Proposing an "anarchism" for education. Educational Studies, 44 (2) 122-41.
DeLeon, A. (2006). The time for action is now! Anarchist theory, critical pedagogy, and radical possibilities. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 4 (2). Retrieved from http://www.jceps.com/
Derrida, J. (1972). Structure, sign and play in the discourse of the human sciences. In R. Macksey & E. Donate (eds.), The languages of criticism and the sciences of man: the structuralist controversy, 223-224. Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press.
Doll, W. (2001). Prigogine: a new sense of order, a new curriculum. Theory Into Practice, XXV (1) 10-16.
Eisner, E. (1991). The educational imagination: On the design and evaluation of school programs. 1st ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Henderson, J.G., & Kesson K.R. (2004). Curriculum wisdom: Educational decisions in democratic societies. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Hlebowitsh, P. (2005). Designing the school curriculum. Boston: Pearson.
Maxcy, S. J. (1994). Democracy, design, and the new reflective practice. NASSP Bulletin, 78 (46), 46-50.
"Poststructuralism." International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. 2008. Retrieved November 02, 2011 from Encyclopedia.com: http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3045302012.html
Slattery, John (2006). Curriculum development in the postmodern era. New York, New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.
Wilshire, B. (1990). The moral collapse of the university: Professionalism, purity, and alienation. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press